Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves
Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning m...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Zhu, Chengcheng [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2018 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology - Springer London, 1985, 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:100 ; year:2018 ; number:1-4 ; day:25 ; month:09 ; pages:409-419 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2026130302 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2026130302 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230323141853.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2026130302 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 670 |q VZ |
| 100 | 1 | |a Zhu, Chengcheng |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2018 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Mandrel spinning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Counter-roller spinning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Spinning theory | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Finite element method | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Zhao, Shengdun |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Li, Shuaipeng |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fan, Shuqin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |d Springer London, 1985 |g 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 |w (DE-627)129185299 |w (DE-600)52651-4 |w (DE-576)014456192 |x 0268-3768 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:100 |g year:2018 |g number:1-4 |g day:25 |g month:09 |g pages:409-419 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-TEC | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2018 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2333 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 100 |j 2018 |e 1-4 |b 25 |c 09 |h 409-419 | ||
| author_variant |
c z cz s z sz s l sl s f sf |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:02683768:2018----::oprsnfadeadonerlesinnmtosomn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2018 |
| publishDate |
2018 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 670 VZ Zhu, Chengcheng verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 aut Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method Zhao, Shengdun aut Li, Shuaipeng aut Fan, Shuqin aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology Springer London, 1985 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 (DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 0268-3768 nnns volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 AR 100 2018 1-4 25 09 409-419 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 670 VZ Zhu, Chengcheng verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 aut Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method Zhao, Shengdun aut Li, Shuaipeng aut Fan, Shuqin aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology Springer London, 1985 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 (DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 0268-3768 nnns volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 AR 100 2018 1-4 25 09 409-419 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 670 VZ Zhu, Chengcheng verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 aut Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method Zhao, Shengdun aut Li, Shuaipeng aut Fan, Shuqin aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology Springer London, 1985 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 (DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 0268-3768 nnns volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 AR 100 2018 1-4 25 09 409-419 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 670 VZ Zhu, Chengcheng verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 aut Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method Zhao, Shengdun aut Li, Shuaipeng aut Fan, Shuqin aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology Springer London, 1985 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 (DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 0268-3768 nnns volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 AR 100 2018 1-4 25 09 409-419 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 670 VZ Zhu, Chengcheng verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 aut Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves 2018 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method Zhao, Shengdun aut Li, Shuaipeng aut Fan, Shuqin aut Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology Springer London, 1985 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 (DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 0268-3768 nnns volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 AR 100 2018 1-4 25 09 409-419 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology 100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419 volume:100 year:2018 number:1-4 day:25 month:09 pages:409-419 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method |
| dewey-raw |
670 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Zhu, Chengcheng @@aut@@ Zhao, Shengdun @@aut@@ Li, Shuaipeng @@aut@@ Fan, Shuqin @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2018-09-25T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
129185299 |
| dewey-sort |
3670 |
| id |
OLC2026130302 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2026130302</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230323141853.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2026130302</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhu, Chengcheng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mandrel spinning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Counter-roller spinning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinning theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Finite element method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhao, Shengdun</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Li, Shuaipeng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fan, Shuqin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer London, 1985</subfield><subfield code="g">100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129185299</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)52651-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014456192</subfield><subfield code="x">0268-3768</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:100</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:25</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:409-419</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">100</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1-4</subfield><subfield code="b">25</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield><subfield code="h">409-419</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Zhu, Chengcheng |
| spellingShingle |
Zhu, Chengcheng ddc 670 misc Mandrel spinning misc Counter-roller spinning misc Spinning theory misc Finite element method Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| authorStr |
Zhu, Chengcheng |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129185299 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
670 - Manufacturing |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0268-3768 |
| topic_title |
670 VZ Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves Mandrel spinning Counter-roller spinning Spinning theory Finite element method |
| topic |
ddc 670 misc Mandrel spinning misc Counter-roller spinning misc Spinning theory misc Finite element method |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 670 misc Mandrel spinning misc Counter-roller spinning misc Spinning theory misc Finite element method |
| topic_browse |
ddc 670 misc Mandrel spinning misc Counter-roller spinning misc Spinning theory misc Finite element method |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
129185299 |
| dewey-tens |
670 - Manufacturing |
| hierarchy_top_title |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129185299 (DE-600)52651-4 (DE-576)014456192 |
| title |
Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2026130302 (DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p |
| title_full |
Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| author_sort |
Zhu, Chengcheng |
| journal |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| journalStr |
The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2018 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
409 |
| author_browse |
Zhu, Chengcheng Zhao, Shengdun Li, Shuaipeng Fan, Shuqin |
| container_volume |
100 |
| class |
670 VZ |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Zhu, Chengcheng |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0001-7459-1366 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366 |
| dewey-full |
670 |
| title_sort |
comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| title_auth |
Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| abstract |
Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves. © Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-TEC GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_2018 GBV_ILN_2333 |
| container_issue |
1-4 |
| title_short |
Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Zhao, Shengdun Li, Shuaipeng Fan, Shuqin |
| author2Str |
Zhao, Shengdun Li, Shuaipeng Fan, Shuqin |
| ppnlink |
129185299 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T03:11:14.501Z |
| _version_ |
1803616438994337792 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2026130302</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230323141853.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2018 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2026130302</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s00170-018-2707-1-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhu, Chengcheng</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-7459-1366</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of mandrel and counter-roller spinning methods for manufacturing large sheaves</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract A number of spinning methods can be utilized to produce large sheaves such as crosshead sheaves. However, few studies have investigated the relationship and differences between these methods. Therefore, an exploration of spinning features is necessary. In this study, four typical spinning methods, including a novel counter-roller spinning method, were selected to study the forming process. Numerical simulation and experiment study were performed. A theoretical model was then proposed to determine the differences between each spinning method. Stress and strain distribution, thickness reduction, and spinning forces during the forming process were obtained, and results of the simulations and experiments matched well. Variations in the sheave thickness, stress value, and spinning force were observed with different spinning methods. Although all spinning methods investigated in this study could form sheaves, counter-roller spinning with a simple roller method demonstrated the smallest thickness reduction, spinning force, and forming stress. Therefore, the counter-roller spinning should be the first option for spinning large sheaves.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Mandrel spinning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Counter-roller spinning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Spinning theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Finite element method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhao, Shengdun</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Li, Shuaipeng</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fan, Shuqin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">The international journal of advanced manufacturing technology</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer London, 1985</subfield><subfield code="g">100(2018), 1-4 vom: 25. Sept., Seite 409-419</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129185299</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)52651-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014456192</subfield><subfield code="x">0268-3768</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:100</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1-4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:25</subfield><subfield code="g">month:09</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:409-419</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2707-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-TEC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">100</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1-4</subfield><subfield code="b">25</subfield><subfield code="c">09</subfield><subfield code="h">409-419</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399131 |